Customer pays for a given level of service and a given maximum number of bits transported each month. You must declare what those numbers are and not impede them in any way. False advertising of either number is punished severely. Ranges of numbers are not acceptable.
Does it need to be any more complicated than that?
It's when you're accused of plagiarism of your own previous writings that this gets absurd. Do you not have the right to reuse and improve upon your own writings?
I would never let a service like this have any of my original work if I could possibly avoid it. Why isn't there some provision that you can check this paper against others, but you CANNOT add it to your database? It is outright theft otherwise.
Their aim is to invent useful gizmos with everyday materials.
What a fun project to be a part of.
Now how about finding something much more useful to do with those clunkers besides just crushing them into scrap? The current plan -- Democratically inspired, of course -- is one of the biggest wastes of already refined and manufactured resources imaginable, and an outright giveaway to the autoworker union.
So who has been saying all along that GPU compute on ATI cards just isn't up to snuff? I doubt that they picked out an ATI video card to use because it was too difficult, or the programming tools too immature, or the programming interface documentation too incomplete or secret, to provide an effective demonstration? I would expect rather the opposite to be true and that GPU compute on ATI cards already works well and will only get better over time.
More power to the FCC to rein in Apple's arrogance. This whole "duplication of functionality" ploy is bogus. It basically boils down to two things:
1: We want to continue to immensely overcharge for the voice channel as long as we possibly can.
2: We don't want anybody else to show up our shoddy programming with better apps so we'll just stifle competition in any area that we already compete.
That's why I'll have an Android phone before I'd ever consider an iPhone. Google is only half as bad as Apple in this area.
This is mostly an attack on solar power by making it less economic than it already is. Solar power isn't economic at the moment which is why rebates are necessary to sell it. If it was that great overall then people would be lining up to get it without the rebates in the first place. The power companies don't like solar power because it cuts down on their revenue (remember, they sell power) and they're forced by regulators to buy home-generated power usually at peak prices. This is a subtle way to try and kill it without looking like that's what they're really doing.
again, the source is available for free from our page
This is your second mistake: feeling absolved for providing the source code when you know that the ordinary person can't simply compile it and load it into their own insanely locked down iPhone. That makes the source code particularly unusable, except as a programming example to aspiring iPhone developers.
we decided it was a moral imperative to port it to our cellphones.
There was your first mistake. You felt that simply because you liked it, even though it didn't belong to you, that you could go ahead and do this anyway.
Count me as one more person who, after this farce, will do everything I can to never give the RIAA record companies another dime of my money. I'll buy independent music, listen for free on the radio, or simply do without. I can live a good life without their music, and they ought to be scared by that thought.
I would expect game characters to reflect the characters that players want to play. That doesn't require diversity.
And when some games don't provide the characters that gamers want to play while other games do, I expect the games that provide the right characters to succeed and the ones who don't provide those characters to fail.
It's called the free market, folks, and maybe you should worry about it a little bit less.
Re:Not sure if its time for AES2, but...BUT THIS..
on
Another New AES Attack
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
attacks only get better and better, so every decade or so, maybe it would be time to consider another standard encryption algorithm.
That does nothing to protect all of the existing AES data. And you can't go back and simply re-encrypt the old data to the new standard. The whole idea of encrypting it in the first place was that it was likely to get stolen somewhere along the way and when it did it would never be of any use to the thief. There is a lot of AES protected data that has been copied and can simply be held until an AES crack arrives -- or the key is determined by other means.
Re:There is no such thing as ten-round AES-256 *$*
on
Another New AES Attack
·
· Score: 1
Hence, the recommendation by Schneier to move to 28 rounds -- improve the safety factor. Attacks always get better, never worse. It's possible (though unlikely) that there are unpublished attacks on AES known by some organizations -- and the closer to a real break the publicly known attacks are, then the more plausible that scenario becomes. Attacks that get this close and weren't anticipated by the cipher designers are scary things.
The problem isn't the ability to move to 28 rounds for security now, but with everything that was encrypted at only 14 rounds before. You're not going to re-encrypt everything from before, and you can't recall all of those less secure copies. That's the problem.
The most important question I have about the Antikythera mechanism is: does it compute utilizing a heliocentric solar system model? If it does, then constructing a device to model the existing solar system would have given you the heliocentric answer as the most simplified solution to the heavens very much pre-Copernicus.
If you can't do it in prisons where phones are illegal to start with, what makes you possibly think that you could do it in a school, no matter how well justified the reasons for it may be?
This student makes a valid case that Amazon has destroyed the value of his original content with its actions. This is certainly a shining example of The Law of Unintended Consequences biting them in the posterior.
OTOH, admittedly Amazon was caught in-between a rock and a hard place here. I think what they should have done is have given all book royalties already collected to the proper copyright holder, revoked/sued the person who improperly posted the book for sale for all damages, removed the books from further sale, and left the people who had purchased the books in good faith with their copies.
This story should make sense because the original story directly implied prior knowledge of the Alien organism prior to its "discovery" in the movie--although why anyone thought it needed "protecting" is beyond me. It always seemed quite capable of protecting itself.
Best alien joke: The cartoon of the Imperial Storm Trooper with a face-grabber on its face saying, "I hate being the one to have to walk Lord Darth Vader's pet."
And yes, after seeing the original Alien in an evening movie showing without knowing what it was really about ahead of time, I left the bathroom light on that night afterwards just in case. I'm sure I wasn't the only one.
Who says that there isn't room for hardware improvement in game consoles. Real-time raytracing would be a huge improvement that has yet to happen, but is probably reachable at game console costs in 2 more generations.
The day I say that hardware has gone far enough is when I can't see any further improvement with my eye from increased pixel counts (my eye has a fixed resolution), framerates (my brain only runs so fast), color depth (my eye has a fixed color resolution ability of around 10m colors optimal), or realistic technology (if I can't tell it from real already, then making it twice as good from that won't be any improvement to me). I can see that day arriving in the next decade or so.
In short, once technology can create a seamless realistic experience at an affordable cost then no further improvement in that area is necessary and efforts should be directed to other areas instead.
How does this actually date it? So what if it has a word older than the previous dating? WTH does that have to do with it. Now if it had a word newer than the estimated date then I'd say that the date has to be adjusted. But once a word is created it continues to exist forward in time so how real really is this discovery. This is hardly 1984 where the whole language was changed to suit political ends as required.
The caller doesn't need to be explicitly be informed that I may be on another call or away from my desk, nor what information they need to provide if they want to hear back from me. If they're smart enough to have dialed my number they can infer the rest.
Slashdot Mirror
Would be nice if the bill simply said that:
Customer pays for a given level of service and a given maximum number of bits transported each month. You must declare what those numbers are and not impede them in any way. False advertising of either number is punished severely. Ranges of numbers are not acceptable.
Does it need to be any more complicated than that?
So Apple has no clothes when it comes to its squeaky-clean fanboi image.
Wow, what a surprise!
I vote that they change it to: Electron Hut.
It's when you're accused of plagiarism of your own previous writings that this gets absurd. Do you not have the right to reuse and improve upon your own writings?
I would never let a service like this have any of my original work if I could possibly avoid it. Why isn't there some provision that you can check this paper against others, but you CANNOT add it to your database? It is outright theft otherwise.
What a fun project to be a part of.
Now how about finding something much more useful to do with those clunkers besides just crushing them into scrap? The current plan -- Democratically inspired, of course -- is one of the biggest wastes of already refined and manufactured resources imaginable, and an outright giveaway to the autoworker union.
So who has been saying all along that GPU compute on ATI cards just isn't up to snuff? I doubt that they picked out an ATI video card to use because it was too difficult, or the programming tools too immature, or the programming interface documentation too incomplete or secret, to provide an effective demonstration? I would expect rather the opposite to be true and that GPU compute on ATI cards already works well and will only get better over time.
More power to the FCC to rein in Apple's arrogance. This whole "duplication of functionality" ploy is bogus. It basically boils down to two things:
1: We want to continue to immensely overcharge for the voice channel as long as we possibly can.
2: We don't want anybody else to show up our shoddy programming with better apps so we'll just stifle competition in any area that we already compete.
That's why I'll have an Android phone before I'd ever consider an iPhone. Google is only half as bad as Apple in this area.
This is mostly an attack on solar power by making it less economic than it already is. Solar power isn't economic at the moment which is why rebates are necessary to sell it. If it was that great overall then people would be lining up to get it without the rebates in the first place. The power companies don't like solar power because it cuts down on their revenue (remember, they sell power) and they're forced by regulators to buy home-generated power usually at peak prices. This is a subtle way to try and kill it without looking like that's what they're really doing.
This is your second mistake: feeling absolved for providing the source code when you know that the ordinary person can't simply compile it and load it into their own insanely locked down iPhone. That makes the source code particularly unusable, except as a programming example to aspiring iPhone developers.
There was your first mistake. You felt that simply because you liked it, even though it didn't belong to you, that you could go ahead and do this anyway.
Bad move!
Count me as one more person who, after this farce, will do everything I can to never give the RIAA record companies another dime of my money. I'll buy independent music, listen for free on the radio, or simply do without. I can live a good life without their music, and they ought to be scared by that thought.
I would expect game characters to reflect the characters that players want to play. That doesn't require diversity.
And when some games don't provide the characters that gamers want to play while other games do, I expect the games that provide the right characters to succeed and the ones who don't provide those characters to fail.
It's called the free market, folks, and maybe you should worry about it a little bit less.
That does nothing to protect all of the existing AES data. And you can't go back and simply re-encrypt the old data to the new standard. The whole idea of encrypting it in the first place was that it was likely to get stolen somewhere along the way and when it did it would never be of any use to the thief. There is a lot of AES protected data that has been copied and can simply be held until an AES crack arrives -- or the key is determined by other means.
The problem isn't the ability to move to 28 rounds for security now, but with everything that was encrypted at only 14 rounds before. You're not going to re-encrypt everything from before, and you can't recall all of those less secure copies. That's the problem.
They should have picked TwoFish.
Where's my blimp. And please point me to the nearest jetstream.
The most important question I have about the Antikythera mechanism is: does it compute utilizing a heliocentric solar system model? If it does, then constructing a device to model the existing solar system would have given you the heliocentric answer as the most simplified solution to the heavens very much pre-Copernicus.
Like passing notes -- the original method of texting?
If you can't do it in prisons where phones are illegal to start with, what makes you possibly think that you could do it in a school, no matter how well justified the reasons for it may be?
This student makes a valid case that Amazon has destroyed the value of his original content with its actions. This is certainly a shining example of The Law of Unintended Consequences biting them in the posterior.
OTOH, admittedly Amazon was caught in-between a rock and a hard place here. I think what they should have done is have given all book royalties already collected to the proper copyright holder, revoked/sued the person who improperly posted the book for sale for all damages, removed the books from further sale, and left the people who had purchased the books in good faith with their copies.
This story should make sense because the original story directly implied prior knowledge of the Alien organism prior to its "discovery" in the movie--although why anyone thought it needed "protecting" is beyond me. It always seemed quite capable of protecting itself.
Best alien joke: The cartoon of the Imperial Storm Trooper with a face-grabber on its face saying, "I hate being the one to have to walk Lord Darth Vader's pet."
And yes, after seeing the original Alien in an evening movie showing without knowing what it was really about ahead of time, I left the bathroom light on that night afterwards just in case. I'm sure I wasn't the only one.
I don't want to be the sighted driver on the road during the beta test of this system.
I'd rather see the development of robots who can do the driving for the driving-impaired as a proper solution.
Who says that there isn't room for hardware improvement in game consoles. Real-time raytracing would be a huge improvement that has yet to happen, but is probably reachable at game console costs in 2 more generations.
The day I say that hardware has gone far enough is when I can't see any further improvement with my eye from increased pixel counts (my eye has a fixed resolution), framerates (my brain only runs so fast), color depth (my eye has a fixed color resolution ability of around 10m colors optimal), or realistic technology (if I can't tell it from real already, then making it twice as good from that won't be any improvement to me). I can see that day arriving in the next decade or so.
In short, once technology can create a seamless realistic experience at an affordable cost then no further improvement in that area is necessary and efforts should be directed to other areas instead.
How does this actually date it? So what if it has a word older than the previous dating? WTH does that have to do with it. Now if it had a word newer than the estimated date then I'd say that the date has to be adjusted. But once a word is created it continues to exist forward in time so how real really is this discovery. This is hardly 1984 where the whole language was changed to suit political ends as required.
Hi, this is {name}. Please leave a message.
The caller doesn't need to be explicitly be informed that I may be on another call or away from my desk, nor what information they need to provide if they want to hear back from me. If they're smart enough to have dialed my number they can infer the rest.